Linux kernel on FreeBSD

[Jerry McAllister]

> 
> I recently ran across an intresting project, Debian GNU/FreeBSD, a
> FreeBSD kernel running with the standard userland from the GNU Project.
> This surprised me as it almost seems like the exact opposite of what I'd
> want.  Now this does give me an idea, what about making Linux/FreeBSD,
> the Linux kernel with the userland from FreeBSD.  Ideally, I'd just like
> to run a straight FreeBSD system, but I can't seem to get rid of my
> Linux partition, and it's mainly because of features/drivers that linux
> has, but freebsd does not.  For example, I recently ran across the
> problem that my realtek 10/100 nic is not supported under the freebsd
> kernel, but it is very supported under linux for some time now.  My
> intel sound card is also not supported, neither is my webcam nor my sony
> clie, all of which is supported under linux.  Also, I've found the
> Netfilter firewall in Linux to be, IMHO, a little better designed than
> ipfilter or ipfw in freebsd, and it definetely has more features than
> those two freebsd firewalls.  Now I'm not trying to slam freebsd, but I
> do think that linux has better driver support, if for no other reason
> than that it has more developers that use linux.  I do believe that
> freebsd has had a much better firewall than linux's former firewalls,
> and I have yet to look at pf to see how it compares.  I also think that
> the quality of the freebsd source code is also higher overall, but
> the linux kernel seems to work well enough and, for a desktop, I find it
> much nice for hardware support, but I still prefer freebsd userland to
> the bloated gnu userland.  I hate distro's that decide bash is the best
> choice for writing all the system startup scripts in when I'm trying to
> run linux on a system with minimal ram, or even with plenty of ram.

Most people who run FreeBSD (the enlightened) are especially attracted by 
the reliability as one of its main features.   Most people who complain 
about FreeBSD (the unenlightened, of course...) are unhappy with its 
userland features.   Given this, why would someone want a less reliable 
kernel matched with a less feature-ful userland - eg. Linux kernel with 
FreeBSD userland? 

Driver support is mainly a matter of weight in the marketplace.
Hardware vendors want to market to the (unwashed) masses because of 
presumed volume of sales and don't give much attention to the relatively 
small niche that is the (enlightened) FreeBSD user.    Of course the
1000 ton rabid gorilla in the market is MS.  Out of greed or terror, every 
hardware vendor creates drivers themselves for MS first.  But Linux has 
just enough weight to get most, but not all, of the hardware vendors to 
give at least some support to making drivers for it - at least the specs.    
Unfortunately, FreeBSD is thought to have low enough weight in the market 
that many (unenlightened) hardware vendors will not provide any support for 
driver development for FreeBSD and some will not even release information 
that can be used by others to write drivers.   Some (enlightened) vendors do 
give some about of support or at least release specs for driver development.
So, make a point of buying from (enlightened) vendors whose hardware will 
support FreeBSD and thus help support enlightenment in the digital community.

////jerry

> -- 
> I sense much NT in you.
> NT leads to Bluescreen.
> Bluescreen leads to downtime.
> Downtime leads to suffering.
> NT is the path to the darkside.
> Powerful Unix is.
> 
> Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc
> Fingerprint: B3B9 D669 69C9 09EC 1BCD  835A FAF3 7A46 E4A3 280C
>  
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>